Deborah
Elaine Johaningmeier ("plaintiff) seeks judicial review
of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security
("Commissioner") denying her application for Title
II Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under the
Social Security Act ("Act"). Because the
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial
evidence, his decision is AFFIRMED and this case DISMISSED.

Procedural
Background

Plaintiff
protectively filed her application for DIB on October 17,
2012, alleging disability as of January 1, 2010. (Tr. 22,
21145.) The Commissioner denied her application initially and
upon reconsideration, and she requested a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Tr. 91-102,
103-13, 126-27.) An administrative hearing was held on
December 22, 2014. (Tr. 37-78). A supplemental hearing was
held on June 1, 2015. (Tr. 79-90.) After the hearings, the
ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on June 10, 2015, finding
plaintiff not disabled. (Tr, 19-36.) The Appeals Council
denied plaintiff s subsequent request for review, making the
ALJ's decision final. (Tr. 1 -7.)

Factual
Background

Bora on
August 27, 1956, plaintiff was 53 years old on the alleged
onset date of disability and 58 years old at the time of the
initial hearing. (Tr. 42, 92, 103.) She speaks English,
completed a year of college, and vocational college for
phlebotomy. (Tr. 42-43, 227, 229.) Plaintiff alleges
disability due to migraines, insomnia, depression,
interstitial cystitis, high blood pressure, arthritis,
ischemic colitis, asthma, and hypothyroidism. (Tr. 49-51, 92,
103.)

Standard
of Review

The
court must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it is
based on proper legal standards and the findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record, Hammock
v. Bowen, 879 F, 2d 498, 501 (9th Cir. 1989).
Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Richardson v. Perales,402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)
(citation and internal quotations omitted). The court must
weigh "both the evidence that supports and detracts from
the [Commissioner's] conclusions, " Martinez v.
Heckler,807 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986), "Where
the evidence as a whole can support either a grant or a
denial, [the court] may not substitute [its] judgment for the
ALJ's." Massachi v. Astrue,486 F.3d 1149,
1152 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

The
initial burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish
disability. Howard v. Heckler,782 F.2d 1484, 1486
(9th Cir. 1986). To meet this burden, the claimant must
demonstrate an "inability to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable
physical or mental impairment which can be expected ... to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

The
Commissioner has established a five-step sequential process
for determining whether a person is disabled. Bowen v.
Yuckert,482 U.S. 137, 140 (1987); 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520.[1] First, the Commissioner determines whether
a claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful
activity." Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 140; 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(b). If so, the claimant is not disabled.

At step
three, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant's
impairments, either singly or in combination, meet or equal
"one of a number of listed impairments that the
[Commissioner] acknowledges are so severe as to preclude
substantial gainful activity." Yuckert, 482
U.S. at 140-41; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If so, the
claimant is presumptively disabled; if not, the Commissioner
proceeds to step four. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141.

At step
four, the Commissioner resolves whether the claimant can
still perform "past relevant work." 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(f). If the claimant can work, he is not
disabled; if he cannot perform past relevant work, the burden
shifts to the Commissioner. At step five, the Commissioner
must establish that the claimant can perform other work
existing in significant numbers in the national or local
economy. Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141-42; 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(g). If the Commissioner meets this burden,
the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F, R. § 404.1566.

The
ALJ's Findings

The ALJ
performed the sequential analysis. At step one of the
five-step process outlined above, the ALJ found that
plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since January 1, 2012, the alleged onset date. (Tr. 24.) At
step two, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: interstitial cystitis, [2] osteoarthritis of
the bilateral knees, mild left shoulder rotator cuff
tendonitis, and mild degenerative disc disease. (Tr. 24-25.)
At step three, the ALJ determined that plaintiff did not have
an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled a listed impairment. (Tr. 25.)

The ALJ
next assessed plaintiffs residual functional capacity
("RFC") and found that plaintiff has the RFC to

perform less than the full range of light work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(b). She can lift and carry 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently and can stand and/or
walk 6 of 8 hours. She can occasionally climb and frequently
stoop, kneel and crouch. She should not be required to engage
in overhead reaching with the left upper extremity on more
than an occasional basis.

(Tr. 25-30.)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;At step
four, the ALJ found that plaintiff could perform her past
relevant work as a phlebotomist. (Tr. 30.) The ALJ therefore
concluded plaintiff was not disabled. (Id.) The ALJ
did not ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.